Very interesting comment, SAM. First of all, I'm sure you can see the uselessness of giving money to people who don't know how to handle it (millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions, tens of billions, trillions, etc), and will lose it. You must know enough about lottery winners and professional athletes, even elite ones…
Very interesting comment, SAM. First of all, I'm sure you can see the uselessness of giving money to people who don't know how to handle it (millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions, tens of billions, trillions, etc), and will lose it. You must know enough about lottery winners and professional athletes, even elite ones with every benefit, who lose it all. Then, they're back where they started, and are resentful. Addressing the dysfunctional underlying social systems is the only thing that will help.
I see better your distinction between "Political Zionism" and the Zionism that comes from having pride of place. And I think you're right. Yes, without question, before the imperialized/colonizing version of Zionism, Jews and many Arabs had no problem with each other. Of course, it should be remembered that after WWI, the Middle East was artificially carved up in ways it wasn't before, and this disruption may have contributed to Arab tensions/resentment toward Jews, who had nothing to do with it. (Maybe they believed the Nazi's explanation about who was at fault for all problems.) You do know that Hamas was created in part by Netanyahu, whose motives will always be suspect, so lacking Israeli misbehavior, there was no cause for tension, and certainly not for aggression. But we must recall that throughout the relatively short life of Israel, Israelis have made aggressive and rapacious incursions into Palestinian territory, so that shit was going to hit the fan at some point. No Israeli government ever intervened to stop it.
I'm missing something. What's the "one state?" If you read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged," you might have been left with the idea that everyone lives together peacefully, in part because everyone has and knows his or her place. Is that what you think one state is? If it is, you might in theory be right, as long as the Israelis aren't aggressive, greedy, and rapacious. But they are. Even in this country, it's almost a joke how relentless are Israelis who want to sell something, and won't take no for an answer.
You can provide a list of the people, and groups, and countries, that aren't inherently bad. The availability/weakness/passivity to be motivated by the most powerful among us (or people, like Donnie, who pretend to be, and are followed) is its own kind of badness. The imagined instinct not to be bad does not overpower that willingness to be a sucker, and to believe the unbelievable. Receptiveness to falsehoods (not infrequently patent) and fear is a kind of badness. I read an interesting article a day or two ago about the "swing" states in which people polled thought their local economies were improved, but they were willing to believe that the national economy, which is not visible to them, but about which they're told, is deteriorating. Maybe you'll say that's stupidity, not badness. We can split that hair. When someone tells you to believe what they tell you, and not "your lying eyes," you have a choice.
If you haven't watched Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," it is about precisely what you say: Americans' willingness to feel afraid because of the people who tell them everyone is out to get them. As I said, you can argue whether this availability is bad or stupid. Do you know that guns are the major cause of death in minors of all ages and in suicides? People could "know" that. But they're willing to believe instead that they're under constant threat.
Very interesting comment, SAM. First of all, I'm sure you can see the uselessness of giving money to people who don't know how to handle it (millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions, tens of billions, trillions, etc), and will lose it. You must know enough about lottery winners and professional athletes, even elite ones with every benefit, who lose it all. Then, they're back where they started, and are resentful. Addressing the dysfunctional underlying social systems is the only thing that will help.
I see better your distinction between "Political Zionism" and the Zionism that comes from having pride of place. And I think you're right. Yes, without question, before the imperialized/colonizing version of Zionism, Jews and many Arabs had no problem with each other. Of course, it should be remembered that after WWI, the Middle East was artificially carved up in ways it wasn't before, and this disruption may have contributed to Arab tensions/resentment toward Jews, who had nothing to do with it. (Maybe they believed the Nazi's explanation about who was at fault for all problems.) You do know that Hamas was created in part by Netanyahu, whose motives will always be suspect, so lacking Israeli misbehavior, there was no cause for tension, and certainly not for aggression. But we must recall that throughout the relatively short life of Israel, Israelis have made aggressive and rapacious incursions into Palestinian territory, so that shit was going to hit the fan at some point. No Israeli government ever intervened to stop it.
I'm missing something. What's the "one state?" If you read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged," you might have been left with the idea that everyone lives together peacefully, in part because everyone has and knows his or her place. Is that what you think one state is? If it is, you might in theory be right, as long as the Israelis aren't aggressive, greedy, and rapacious. But they are. Even in this country, it's almost a joke how relentless are Israelis who want to sell something, and won't take no for an answer.
You can provide a list of the people, and groups, and countries, that aren't inherently bad. The availability/weakness/passivity to be motivated by the most powerful among us (or people, like Donnie, who pretend to be, and are followed) is its own kind of badness. The imagined instinct not to be bad does not overpower that willingness to be a sucker, and to believe the unbelievable. Receptiveness to falsehoods (not infrequently patent) and fear is a kind of badness. I read an interesting article a day or two ago about the "swing" states in which people polled thought their local economies were improved, but they were willing to believe that the national economy, which is not visible to them, but about which they're told, is deteriorating. Maybe you'll say that's stupidity, not badness. We can split that hair. When someone tells you to believe what they tell you, and not "your lying eyes," you have a choice.
If you haven't watched Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," it is about precisely what you say: Americans' willingness to feel afraid because of the people who tell them everyone is out to get them. As I said, you can argue whether this availability is bad or stupid. Do you know that guns are the major cause of death in minors of all ages and in suicides? People could "know" that. But they're willing to believe instead that they're under constant threat.